Wednesday, May 11, 2005

Background Resources Were Not Removed

I have been informed by David Fishback, chair of the Citizens Committee that developed the curriculum, that the sources quoted by Judge Williams in his memorandum are "background resources" which were not -- repeat, were not -- removed by MCPS.

Just to save confusion from my misinterpretation, here's what Mr. Fishback said in an email today:

Except where explicitly placed in the context of the curriculum (see the definitions section) none of the Teacher Resources listed in the November 9 report have ever been mentioned in the curriculum itself. None of the three items found objectionable by the court are referenced in the curriculum. There are other items listed as "key resources," but none of them are among the 22 from the CAC recommendation of November 2004. The MCPS staff did not remove any of the background teacher resources prior to the training and the anticipated piloting.

Hope that clears that up.

I considered removing the previous post, but I know the critics would have too much fun with that, and it did result in some interesting comments -- let's just say this post replaces the previous one.

from one of the members of CRC who was a CAC member (objecting of course) during the formation of this curriculum :

"Funny, DF gets it wrong again. The statements in the curriculum have a reference. Just because the reference is not after each statement, like the definitions have, doesn't mean the statements do not come from somewhere. Remember sex play between the same sex comes from the AFY teacher resource. [although I think some are made up]. Anyway if you ask after each statement in the curriculum , "where did this come from?" you would find it in the teacher resources. That is the reference. The curriculm is not a science paper in its structure."

Theresa, this is not very clear. There are "background resources," and there are statements in the curriculum. Are you saying that each background resource has contributed at least one statement to the curriculum, but the references have not been published?

Let's say that's true (it's not). If so, then the CAC did a great job of selecting agreeable lines for the curriculum, since the only ones the judge objected to were hidden in the uncited resources themselves.

In what way is a background resource NOT part of the curriculum? You act like the word "curriculum" means "what the teacher's outline says." It doesn't. The curriculum, by definition, includes everything from the outline/lesson plan to the handouts to the background resources.

To repeat: If background resources are not going to be repeated to the kids, then why are they given to the teachers at all? Is this some kind of little job perk that they get some extra education that they're not supposed to pass on?

The judge wrote, for instance (only one of many places this happens), "The Myths and Facts worksheet, which asks the students to answer whether a given statement is true or false, and then provides them with the answer, states..."

Now, wouldn't you think, reading that, that students answer whether statements on a worksheet are true or false? Don't you think the judge believes that students will be given a worksheet and asked to rate statements as true or false?

No, students never see the worksheet. They're not even told about it. Only teachers see it. That's not to defend the material in the resources, it's not that great, but it was never meant to be scrutinized like this, it was just so teachers could study up.

Clearly, the judge thought it was going to be used in the classroom. He thought it was part of "the curriculum."